Medical Breakthrough: Lung Cancer Vaccine Registered In Cuba

[Sentinel]

Dougal McSprayfarts already posted this in Politics, but I thought an OI discussion on it might be more ..interesting.




http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/01/10/cuba-registro-la-primera-vacuna-terapeutica-del-mundo-contra-el-cancer-de-pulmon/

Cuba reported the first therapeutic vaccine for advanced lung cancer in the world, named CIMAVAX-EGF, with which they have been treated over 1 000 patients on the island, today announced the weekly "Workers."

The project leader of this vaccine in the Molecular Immunology Center (CIM) in Havana, Gisela González, explained that provides the ability to turn advanced cancer in a "manageable chronic disease."

CIMAVAX-EGF is the result of over fifteen years of research, is directed toward the system related to the tumor and does not cause severe side effects, said the specialist.

"It's based on a protein that we all have: the epidermal growth factor, related to the processes of cell proliferation, that when there are cancer control", he said.

Gonzalez said that as the body tolerate "self" and react against "strange", so had to make "a composition that achieves generate antibodies against this protein."

This vaccine is given at the time in which the patient finds treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy and is considered "terminal without alternative therapy" because it helps "control the growth of the tumor without associated toxicity, he said.

It can also be used as a treatment "chronic increases expectations and quality of life for patients."

The researcher noted that after reaching its record in Cuba, now CIMAVAX-EGF "progress" in other countries and assesses how to use its inception in therapies against other tumors such as prostate, uterus and breast.

*translated from Spanish to English with Google Chrome.

While not a total cure for cancer, this is potentially almost as good. Soon cancer may, instead of a possible death penalty, become a disease that you can cope and live with over a longer period. What an amazing breakthrough, and of course one by the scientists of a -- however 'degenerated' -- socialist country. :cool:

Also, while as we know lung cancer is far from the only possible complication of smoking, this does give some hope for us who are unable/unwilling to quit this habit. :redstar2000:

[brigadista]

don't they also have a cure for meningitis?

[Le Libérer]

I'm willing to bet Castro is in the drug trial study. That man will live way into his 100s. :)

[ComradeMan]

This should boost the cigar industry!!!
;)

[#FF0000]

This should boost the cigar industry!!!
;)

you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.

[Havet]

kinda biased news source. but if other scientists and medics can replicate the treatment with the same effects, awesome!

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, but capitalist america makes boner pills... so you take your choice. Long life, or more blowjobs?!

:rolleyes::lol::sneaky:

[Havet]

Ya, but capitalist america makes boner pills... so you take your choice. Long life, or more blowjobs?!

:rolleyes::lol::sneaky:

Nobody's defending america....yet :D

I prefer long life myself. H+ ftw

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I bet that they wont get the Nobel prize for this even if nothing more spectacular commes up in the medical world. jut because its a "degenerated" socialist count...

[Quail]

you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.
If it works in the lungs, I'm sure it could be made to work on mouth/throat cancer too (or whatever cancer cigars give you).

Also, the thread seems to have degenerated into talk about blow jobs pretty quickly... :closedeyes:

[Fulanito de Tal]

This is a huge advancement in oncological care. This treatment appears to provide many people suffering from cancer another option that avoids severe side affects and makes the disease manageable. This will save and improve the quality of lives around the world.

Even better though, it came from Cuba.

iAgua!

[Ele'ill]

Their efforts have also short-term cured anxiety and depression as this post immediately made me feel better about smoking cigarettes before I even read the article.

[Le Libérer]

Their efforts have also short-term cured anxiety and depression as this post immediately made me feel better about smoking cigarettes before I even read the article.

And I am struggling to quit completely. Struggle being the key word.

[RGacky3]

But .... But .... Without the profit motive no one will innovate .... this can't happen, capitalism is the only way innovation happens:confused:!!! What about the incentives? This can't be.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Once again Cuba shows they have some of the best doctors in the world :cool:

[BrandonHerygers]

LOL. Not completely true, i once was smoking a ciggarette with one of my buddies and he was smoking a cuban cigar, somehow he finished the cigar before i finished my ciggarette and he inhaled the whole thing. xD of course it's not recomende that you inhale because it can make you cough up blood. :cool:

[Fawkes]

I haven't really been able to find too many other good sources for this, so I'm still skeptical, but I am admittedly not surprised that Western media isn't championing an advancement by Cuba, regardless of the positive effects it may have. My mom never smoked a cigarette in her life and she died from lung cancer after only three years, it ain't all from Winston-Salem :cool:


you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.
But you smoke em in a room or car that ends up being filled with smoke. It ain't as bad as cigarettes, but they can still mess up your lungs.

[Quail]

Once again Cuba shows they have some of the best doctors in the world :cool:
They have the highest doctors to people ratio in the world I think, so it's probably not surprising that the health care is good.

[Lt. Ferret]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000

Cuban Medical Breakthroughs = 1


GOOOO CUUUUBA.

[#FF0000]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000

Cuban Medical Breakthroughs = 1


GOOOO CUUUUBA.

I think you're not understanding the part where Cuba's a tiny island country and that this is cancer.

[RGacky3]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000

Cuban Medical Breakthroughs = 1


GOOOO CUUUUBA.


Where did you get that statistic? Exactly where in your ass?

Cuba has actually had quite a few medical breakthroughs, there was a big one last year.

Also US vrs cuba is'nt a good match, more like Cuba and the Dominican republic.

How many medical breakthroughs do they have?

[TC]

you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.

Yes I would have imagined the Cubans would have an economic incentive to prioritize finding vaccines for oral and esophageal cancer ;)

Seriously though cigar smoking is strongly associated with lung cancer too its just not as much as cigarettes.

[TC]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000

Cuban Medical Breakthroughs = 1


GOOOO CUUUUBA.

America has a population about 30 times that of Cuba's and it leaches the wealth of the world into its pockets through its military and financial hegemony...if it can't achieve medical progress in treating one of its top causes of death and Cuba can, then yes, that does say show something. Just one data point, but not an insignificant one.

[ComradeMan]

you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.

Now you get mouthcancer instead and suffer from the passive smoke! ;) Anyway a certain amount of smoke is inhaled inadvertently even with cigars.

[Lt. Ferret]

you know Cuba has access to information and research done by other scientists and doctors right?

[#FF0000]

you know Cuba has access to information and research done by other scientists and doctors right?

yeah so

[Lt. Ferret]

i just dont see reason for the cuban dicksuckery

[Fulanito de Tal]

you know Cuba has access to information and research done by other scientists and doctors right?

I don't.

[#FF0000]

i just dont see reason for the cuban dicksuckery

Because making a breakthrough in cancer research when you are a tiny island nation is a feat no matter what

[Lt. Ferret]

the island didnt come together and cure cancer. some scientists were pursuing research and theirs proved fruitful. the next breakthrough might come in Tonga and that doesn't legitimize the tongan monarchy.

[Fawkes]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000



Thank god all those men can get boners now after they've finished their early bird dinners.

[#FF0000]

the island didnt come together and cure cancer. some scientists were pursuing research and theirs proved fruitful. the next breakthrough might come in Tonga and that doesn't legitimize the tongan monarchy.

does tonga really have the facilities to come up with a cancer breakthrough honestly.

cause i'd still be impressed

[RGacky3]

the next breakthrough might come in Tonga and that doesn't legitimize the tongan monarchy.

It won't.

What it does illigitimize, once again, is the idea that innovations only come from the profit motive.

[Lt. Ferret]

men will still try to cure cancer. but giving the first guy to cure cancer a billion dollars would probably help things out a bit.

[southernmissfan]

men will still try to cure cancer. but giving the first guy to cure cancer a billion dollars would probably help things out a bit.

Take one look at the American health care system and it becomes painfully obvious the profit motive is not resulting in a better life for patients. Some people make a lot of money, the majority of people suffer.

[Ele'ill]

men will still try to cure cancer. but giving the first guy to cure cancer a billion dollars would probably help things out a bit.

But when they're making trillions treating the symptoms then why bother?

[RGacky3]

men will still try to cure cancer. but giving the first guy to cure cancer a billion dollars would probably help things out a bit.

And then theres the real world, all you gotta do is look around. Who's gonna pay the billion dollars? No one, rich people would rather use those investements in stuff that will get them a real return .... which they do. Just look around buddy.

[Lt. Ferret]

my mom had diabetes. modern medicine contained and cured it. shes poor and on the most basic of insurance. she paid nothing. not always the case but it happens.

[RGacky3]

And one guy fell off a 5 story building and survived, and what?

[TC]

men will still try to cure cancer. but giving the first guy to cure cancer a billion dollars would probably help things out a bit.

That's ridiculous - despite the capitalist myth that money motivates, more money motivates more, and you have to compensate increasing amounts to get and retain increasing amounts of talent and skill...

...the people most skilled and talented in medical research are already working on medical research and they've already reached their maximum level of motivation and effort (since actually curing a cancer would bring immense prestige and a sufficient amount of money if only through the proceeds of celebrity to motivate anyone). Believe it or not you can't increase productivity, effort, or talent in specialist fields just by raising salaries or giving bonuses once a minimal threshold has been reached - a billion dollar reward wont increase the number of hours in a medical researcher's day or make them smarter or attract top medical researchers better paid fields into medical research (yah, ibankers can't do it).

[Lt. Ferret]

i bet those scientists in cuba did it for free.

[RGacky3]

Lt. Ferret, admit it, you lost this one.

[Lt. Ferret]

lost WHAT?

i didnt lose shit you guys post these dumbass scenarios that all healthcare is profit driven by the corporations being all corporationy, and some scientists working with other scientists and iwth the research they do in a socialist country made a scientific discovery and im supposed to be like WHOA CUBA OMG YOU CAN DO SCIENCE?

get out of here with that crap. tomorrow the democratic republic of the congo might cure baldness. it doesn't make that country less of a shit hole.

[#FF0000]

I don't really understand how you still don't get the point.

[RGacky3]

i didnt lose shit you guys post these dumbass scenarios that all healthcare is profit driven by the corporations being all corporationy, and some scientists working with other scientists and iwth the research they do in a socialist country made a scientific discovery and im supposed to be like WHOA CUBA OMG YOU CAN DO SCIENCE?


The premis of Pro-Capitalists, is that all innovation that benefits society is profit driven, thats been your premis, and thatin a socialist society there is no incentive to innovate.

You were wrong.


I don't really understand how you still don't get the point.

He does, he just does'nt have the balls to admit he was wrong.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

The premis of Pro-Capitalists, is that all innovation that benefits society is profit driven, thats been your premis, and thatin a socialist society there is no incentive to innovate.

You were wrong.



He does, he just does'nt have the balls to admit he was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

New study: "As long as the task involves only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as expected. Higher pay equaled higher performance. But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills, a larger reward led to poorer performance."

[RGacky3]

I've seen that before, but its not the only study, the libertarian view of incentives (which is the basis of economics) has been debunked many many times, very good video though.

[Lt. Ferret]

The premis of Pro-Capitalists, is that all innovation that benefits society is profit driven, thats been your premis, and thatin a socialist society there is no incentive to innovate.

You were wrong.



He does, he just does'nt have the balls to admit he was wrong.


a socialist society still rewards innovation.

and yes, im fully aware that scientists would do their work without the promises of financial wealth.

but i do know the countries where financial wealth can be gained through scientific innovation have a marked advantage in scientific discoveries. coincidence? maybe!


and really, like i said, im not impressed if cuban scientists occasionally discovers something useful. that says very little about the cuban economic or political system.

[#FF0000]

and really, like i said, im not impressed if cuban scientists occasionally discovers something useful. that says very little about the cuban economic or political system.

But I think it says something for their medical system that they have the means to make a breakthrough like this.

[Rusty Shackleford]

lost WHAT?

i didnt lose shit you guys post these dumbass scenarios that all healthcare is profit driven by the corporations being all corporationy, and some scientists working with other scientists and iwth the research they do in a socialist country made a scientific discovery and im supposed to be like WHOA CUBA OMG YOU CAN DO SCIENCE?

get out of here with that crap. tomorrow the democratic republic of the congo might cure baldness. it doesn't make that country less of a shit hole.
and this is where you lost your shit.


a socialist society still rewards innovation.

and yes, im fully aware that scientists would do their work without the promises of financial wealth.

but i do know the countries where financial wealth can be gained through scientific innovation have a marked advantage in scientific discoveries. coincidence? maybe!


and really, like i said, im not impressed if cuban scientists occasionally discovers something useful. that says very little about the cuban economic or political system.


The only correlaton is the technology available. a financially powerful nation is, or at some point in history was, also industrially powerful. simply placing money as a reward for making a discovery does not necessarily create discovery.

necessity drives discovery and so do accidents. but now we have cuba, an industrially insignificant nation in comparison to the US which has prioritized medical research, and practice. its basically a collective goal of cuban society.

what is the collective goal of american society? wealth concentration and attainment. in the field of medicine? cancer foundations have to resort to annual charities and selling ribbons while boner pill makers get funding from investors. happy pill makers get investors. and fucking ritalin and adderall are rubber stamp treatments for any childs "abnormality"

[RGacky3]

but i do know the countries where financial wealth can be gained through scientific innovation have a marked advantage in scientific discoveries. coincidence? maybe!


You mean the world? Most of the world is Capitalist, also, tons and tons of innovation has no benefit for most poeple.


and really, like i said, im not impressed if cuban scientists occasionally discovers something useful. that says very little about the cuban economic or political system.

Yes it does, considering Cuba has a great healthcare system and has make medical breakthroughs, it debunks the libertarian/capitalist basis.

[Lt. Ferret]

No, it doesn't. Unless Cuba on a regular basis has surged past the Capitalist world in obtaining medical breakthroughs. One breakthrough does not validate anything. Maybe 100 breakthroughs a year and we can talk about it.

[Jazzratt]

No, it doesn't. Unless Cuba on a regular basis has surged past the Capitalist world in obtaining medical breakthroughs. One breakthrough does not validate anything. Maybe 100 breakthroughs a year and we can talk about it. So which 100 breakthroughs last year are you going to name that were made by America the Greatest Country on Earth, Land of the Free, Home of The Brave Where Eagles Soar?

[mykittyhasaboner]

and really, like i said, im not impressed if cuban scientists occasionally discovers something useful. that says very little about the cuban economic or political system.

Uh, yes it does. Their system is able to provide healthcare for their entire population (not to mention all those people they aid all over the maldeveloped world), which includes medical breakthroughs like this, despite being under an embargo for 50 years and lack so many other things that are necessary for comfortable living. That says a lot about their system. Your just a dick.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

No, it doesn't. Unless Cuba on a regular basis has surged past the Capitalist world in obtaining medical breakthroughs. One breakthrough does not validate anything. Maybe 100 breakthroughs a year and we can talk about it.

How does it work, your mind? Is it just two cells scraping together furiously in the hopes of one day creating a synapse and some inkling of logical thought?

Here's how it works. Cuba has made a discovery that dozens of foundations across the capitalist world and based in the havens of international finance have failed miserably, and not only that, the discovery has been in a rigorous testing and small-scale usage project for over fifteen years in Cuba and has helped to cure over a thousand patients in Cuba. You know when the US cancer researchers came up with a similar idea and attempted to replicate it? One year ago, after preliminary reports of the incredible and life-altering discovery which had been successfully tested and proven to work as advertised came from the small island of Cuba.

Cognitive dissonance, it's no joke.

[southernmissfan]

Lt. Ferret, you are making the false correlation that Western medical breakthroughs are due to capitalism. We would argue these are made IN SPITE of capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

Okay, Cuba made a great medical breakthrough and Cuban medicinal development is noted, one of the few success stories.

Well done Cuba.

It doesn't mean we have to ignore all the other problems in Cuba NOR does it mean we have to attack the country either.

[Burn A Flag]

This will make a great arguing point the next time I discuss Cuba! :thumbup1:

Apparently it is in more articles than just the one on the originally posted site. It is all over the place if you just google it.

[Ele'ill]

It doesn't mean we have to ignore all the other problems in Cuba.

No, it does- because the OP was about a very specific topic and the conversation at hand by Ferret was also about a very specific topic. Anything else brought up is nothing more than a redirection.

[RGacky3]

No, it doesn't. Unless Cuba on a regular basis has surged past the Capitalist world in obtaining medical breakthroughs. One breakthrough does not validate anything. Maybe 100 breakthroughs a year and we can talk about it.


You do realize this is Cuba we are talking about? A small poor carribean nation? Like the Dominican republic.

[Jazzratt]

You do realize this is Cuba we are talking about? A small poor carribean nation? Like the Dominican republic. If Cuba's so great then how comes it ain't big like America? Answer that one Mr. So-called smart guy!

[Pretty Flaco]

you don't inhale cigar smoke, silly.

I learned that the hard way. :glare:

[Pretty Flaco]

No, it doesn't. Unless Cuba on a regular basis has surged past the Capitalist world in obtaining medical breakthroughs. One breakthrough does not validate anything. Maybe 100 breakthroughs a year and we can talk about it.

For some isolated hellhole island in the Caribbean, this sort of medical breakthrough is very interesting.

There are many disheartening things about Cuba, but their medical system is certainly very positive.

[ComradeMan]

No, it does- because the OP was about a very specific topic and the conversation at hand by Ferret was also about a very specific topic. Anything else brought up is nothing more than a redirection.



NOR does it mean we have to attack the country either

Don't misquote people.

:thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

If Cuba's so great then how comes it ain't big like America? Answer that one Mr. So-called smart guy!

Sonova*****, you got me, does this mean Capitalism even grows landmass due to competition?

[Lt. Ferret]

How does it work, your mind? Is it just two cells scraping together furiously in the hopes of one day creating a synapse and some inkling of logical thought?

Here's how it works. Cuba has made a discovery that dozens of foundations across the capitalist world and based in the havens of international finance have failed miserably, and not only that, the discovery has been in a rigorous testing and small-scale usage project for over fifteen years in Cuba and has helped to cure over a thousand patients in Cuba. You know when the US cancer researchers came up with a similar idea and attempted to replicate it? One year ago, after preliminary reports of the incredible and life-altering discovery which had been successfully tested and proven to work as advertised came from the small island of Cuba.

Cognitive dissonance, it's no joke.


Cuban scientists use the research of other scientists as building blocks to greater breakthrough. All scientists do this. This is how science works.

Like I have already said several times.

Scientists being scientisty is generally the same method applied globally, whether in a Communist, Socialist, or Theocratic society, and has little bearing on any other aspect of society.

I have full faith in Cuban scientists, but I also have full faith in any scientific community who is not hassled by outside forces. Socialism did not propel this scientific breakthrough. Scientists did. And this could have happened in America, Russia, or Nicaragua.



Oh and anyone who thinks that the American blockade is the reason Cuba's economy is poor has no idea what international trade is.

[NGNM85]

Also, while as we know lung cancer is far from the only possible complication of smoking, this does give some hope for us who are unable/unwilling to quit this habit.


... this post immediately made me feel better about smoking cigarettes before I even read the article.


And I am struggling to quit completely. Struggle being the key word.

I know it isn't easy, but if I did it, so can you. First, don't expect to succeed the first time, virtually nobody does, but keep at it.

What I found to be most helpful was perseverance, and a gradual reduction in my daily allotted cigarettes. Beyond being orally fixated and a recognizable trademark scent, smokers are uniformly ritualistic. I had my morning cigarette, my before bed cigarette, my just-smoked-pot cigarette, etc., etc. Now, the trick is to identify which of these is the least important, and remove it from your schedule. (But don't just add an extra cigarette to another timeslot as this is totally counterproductive!) Repeat this process one or two weeks later, and continue until you run out. You'll probably break down and buy a pack, but if you keep doing this you gradually wear down your dependency to where you can almost tolerate not smoking. Then, it's pure willpower. You're going to have to distract yourself, every time you want a cigarette do something, or eat something, preferably something healthy. You will gain weight, but that's better than inhaling a cocktail of 40 separate carcinogens on a regular basis. Once you've stopped smoking for about a month you should be in the clear. After a long enough period your body can't handle the smoke anymore, and cigarettes will make you want to vomit, which is helpful. Good luck.

[RGacky3]

Scientists being scientisty is generally the same method applied globally, whether in a Communist, Socialist, or Theocratic society, and has little bearing on any other aspect of society.

I have full faith in Cuban scientists, but I also have full faith in any scientific community who is not hassled by outside forces. Socialism did not propel this scientific breakthrough. Scientists did. And this could have happened in America, Russia, or Nicaragua.


Thats like saying "Socialism did'nt build houses carpenters did, Socialism did'nt make agriculture farmers did, socialism did'nt make roads pavers did." THEY DID IT WITHIN A SOCIALIST SYSTEM dumbass, with the socialist incentive system. So again buddy, thats the point that you purposely miss because you think admiting it will make you look dumb when still trying to deny it makes you look even dumber.


Oh and anyone who thinks that the American blockade is the reason Cuba's economy is poor has no idea what international trade is.

Clearly you don'nt know what international trade is, imagen if the US got blockaided by china? the US is the most powerful economy in the world, Cuba is not, and for decades was almost entirely dependant on the US economy.

[ComradeMan]

Clearly you don'nt know what international trade is, imagen if the US got blockaided by china? the US is the most powerful economy in the world, Cuba is not, and for decades was almost entirely dependant on the US economy.

It's not about who the most powerful country is... rather who the most powerful company is.... ;)

Out of interest some US global ratings:-


Life expectancy #30 (No.1 Andorra, 2 Japan, 3 San Marino)
Democracy #17 (No. 1 Sweden, 2 Iceland, 3 Netherlands)
Freedom of the Press #41 (No.1 Iceland, 2 Luxemburg, 3 Norway)
Internet Speed #15 (No.1 Japan,2 South Korea, 3 Finland)
Smallest Prison Population #40 (No.1 India, 2 Iceland, 3 Slovenia)
Lack of Corruption #22 (No.1 Finland, 2 Iceland, 3 New Zealand)
Effectiveness of Education #35 (No.1 Taiwan, 2 Finland, 3 Hong Kong)
Mobile Phones per Capita #16 (No.1 Germany, 2 Russia, 3 Italy)
Renewable Energy Use #27 (No.1 Iceland, 2 Brazil, 3 Norway)
Scientific Literacy #33 (No.1 Iceland, 2 Sweden, 3 Denmark)
Quality of Healthcare #37 (No.1 France, 2 Italy, 3 San Marino)
Infant Survival Rate #31 (No.1 Japan, 2 Iceland, 3 Sweden)

http://www.fortunewatch.com/usa-are-not-number-one/

[Fawkes]

tomorrow the democratic republic of the congo might cure baldness.

Nah, leave it to the good ole U.S. of A. to tackle the serious medical issues.

[x371322]

my mom had diabetes. modern medicine contained and cured it. shes poor and on the most basic of insurance. she paid nothing. not always the case but it happens.

My mom has diabetes. Modern medicine helps control it. She's poor, and has NO insurance. She pays everything. Not always the case but it happens.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Cuban scientists use the research of other scientists as building blocks to greater breakthrough. All scientists do this. This is how science works.

No shit.



Scientists being scientisty is generally the same method applied globally, whether in a Communist, Socialist, or Theocratic society, and has little bearing on any other aspect of society. Not really, first of all you have to distinguish between fields of science and what kind of institutions your talking about. Generally, the modern state has been at the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, including for example NASA pioneering many consumer technologies in use today. Then you have private institutions, which depending on funding, produce various kinds of results.

Now if were talking about medical science, a country like Cuba has a far better system than the US for example--particularly because of the social organization of this field. From the most basic criteria like accessability to healthcare and the ratio of doctors to people, Cuba performs better than the US despite economic problems like shortages, lack of specific equipment, etc. Empircial data confirms this many times over.

The very fact that people are encouraged to become doctors, for basically humanitarian reasons, and are able to undergo the education requirements without restriction (read: lack of financial means to pay for school) means that the method and application of medical sciences in Cuba is going to more far reaching than it could ever be in the US for example, where the American Medical Assossiation acts to restrict the quantity of doctors to ensure high pay. This is the reason why Cuba is revered for their medical abilities, which include their healthcare system as well as their international work, and in the US you pay so much for basic healthcare that its supposedly the number one cause for home forclosure.


I have full faith in Cuban scientists, but I also have full faith in any scientific community who is not hassled by outside forces. Socialism did not propel this scientific breakthrough. Scientists did. And this could have happened in America, Russia, or Nicaragua. But it didn't, it happened in Cuba, and as a result you have to recognize the kind of conditions which produced this medical breakthrough--namely a socialist organization of healthcare and scientific community.



Oh and anyone who thinks that the American blockade is the reason Cuba's economy is poor has no idea what international trade is.Appearently, you have absolutley no idea what your talking about at all. i really want to see what you write in support of this.

[Ele'ill]

Don't misquote people.

:thumbup1:

Don't misread people's replies. It still stands as it was intended.

:thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

Don't misread people's replies. It still stands as it was intended.

:thumbup1:

Whatever....... yawn.

Ferret was reacting to the congratulatory tone that seemed to overplay Cuban success all round and not limited to this case- he overreacted by attacking Cuba outright.

Whatever....

[Bud Struggle]

You know, it's nice they did something like that. Good for them. Maybe the country can stick it out another decade or so. I wish them well.

[Lt. Ferret]

No shit.


Not really, first of all you have to distinguish between fields of science and what kind of institutions your talking about. Generally, the modern state has been at the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, including for example NASA pioneering many consumer technologies in use today. Then you have private institutions, which depending on funding, produce various kinds of results.

Now if were talking about medical science, a country like Cuba has a far better system than the US for example--particularly because of the social organization of this field. From the most basic criteria like accessability to healthcare and the ratio of doctors to people, Cuba performs better than the US despite economic problems like shortages, lack of specific equipment, etc. Empircial data confirms this many times over.

The very fact that people are encouraged to become doctors, for basically humanitarian reasons, and are able to undergo the education requirements without restriction (read: lack of financial means to pay for school) means that the method and application of medical sciences in Cuba is going to more far reaching than it could ever be in the US for example, where the American Medical Assossiation acts to restrict the quantity of doctors to ensure high pay. This is the reason why Cuba is revered for their medical abilities, which include their healthcare system as well as their international work, and in the US you pay so much for basic healthcare that its supposedly the number one cause for home forclosure.

But it didn't, it happened in Cuba, and as a result you have to recognize the kind of conditions which produced this medical breakthrough--namely a socialist organization of healthcare and scientific community.


Appearently, you have absolutley no idea what your talking about at all. i really want to see what you write in support of this.


because only america embargoes cuba, it stops no other country from buying american products and selling them to cuba.

Iran is also trade embargoed by america, but the UAE and Qutar buy american products and sell them to Iran, so everyone in Iran is walking around in Nike shoes and Tommy Hilfiger shirts.

unless every nation on the planet blockades cuba, a blockade is actually ineffective. lrn2trade.

[Revolution starts with U]

Tell that to the confederacy :laugh:
L2politic

[Lt. Ferret]

Whatever....... yawn.

Ferret was reacting to the congratulatory tone that seemed to overplay Cuban success all round and not limited to this case- he overreacted by attacking Cuba outright.

Whatever....


Not really. I'll take Castro's Cuba over Batista's Cuba, but that doesn't mean that Cuba is some model I seek to emulate. And a medical breakthrough taking place on Cuban soil, in a situation i've already spelled out numerous times, doesn't convince me that Cuba is doing something radically correct.

[L.A.P.]

American Medical Breakthroughs = 50,000

Cuban Medical Breakthroughs = 1


GOOOO CUUUUBA.

You suck at making cynical remarks.

[Lt. Ferret]

You suck at making cynical remarks.


and you suck at making any point whatsoever.

[Lt. Ferret]

Tell that to the confederacy :laugh:
L2politic


are you implying that we have war ships on the coast of cuba intercepting, boarding, or outright destroying cuban ships filled with trade goods, or goods coming into cuba?


lrn2politic/history/economy

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm implying that embargos have worked...

L2vocabulary :lol:

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Cuban scientists use the research of other scientists as building blocks to greater breakthrough. All scientists do this. This is how science works.

Like I have already said several times.

Scientists being scientisty is generally the same method applied globally, whether in a Communist, Socialist, or Theocratic society, and has little bearing on any other aspect of society.

I have full faith in Cuban scientists, but I also have full faith in any scientific community who is not hassled by outside forces. Socialism did not propel this scientific breakthrough. Scientists did. And this could have happened in America, Russia, or Nicaragua.

I don't believe you quite understand what happened here. The Cuban scientists have been working for 15 years on this vaccine, INCLUDING the testing period. This means, that for the past FIFTEEN years, Cuba has been at the head of international research in combating cancer. It's not like they just discovered some research in a medical journal from a capitalist country and started producing it first, they conducted ALL the research for the past FIFTEEN years themselves and made breakthroughs that foundations with billionaire donors and American and European state-funding were incapable of making. THAT is something to be applauded.


Oh and anyone who thinks that the American blockade is the reason Cuba's economy is poor has no idea what international trade is.

Who said it's the reason their economy is poor? Their economy is poor from the hundreds of years of exploitation at the hands of various imperial powers and the promotion of agriculture over any semblance of industry because the US provided for EVERYTHING. Sure, that will fuck you over for a while, but the rest of the world trades with Cuba, for the most part. All that the US embargo does is cut Cuba off from any resources from the largest capitalist nation in the world. It doesn't automatically make the a poor shit-hole, and I did not assert such.

[RGacky3]

And a medical breakthrough taking place on Cuban soil, in a situation i've already spelled out numerous times, doesn't convince me that Cuba is doing something radically correct.

No, but it does right that free market theories are radically wrong.

[mykittyhasaboner]

because only america embargoes cuba, it stops no other country from buying american products and selling them to cuba.

Iran is also trade embargoed by america, but the UAE and Qutar buy american products and sell them to Iran, so everyone in Iran is walking around in Nike shoes and Tommy Hilfiger shirts.


unless every nation on the planet blockades cuba, a blockade is actually ineffective. lrn2trade.

Quite clearly, you don't understand what the blockade does. If Cuba can't purchase it's main imports from the US, it has to pay incredible shipping costs as a result of needing to ship goods from farther distances. Moreover they have to use intermediaries instead of normal trading channels to avoid their shipments and money either being confiscated or subject to penalty. Companies trading with Cuba are penalized regardless of where they are from, so it's not only companies from the US that are prevented from trading normally.

The main point is, that buy crossing itself off of Cuba's list of trading partners, the US government is effectively preventing Cuba from purchasing essential goods, particularly food and medicine. This is quite different from consumer good imports in Iran, so the comparison is quite pathetic really.

The Cuban economy has lost billions of dollars as a result of this embargo, and your claiming it's ineffective. Why not actually research some basic facts and then make an informed opinion?


CUBA, September 27th, 2010.- The US commercial, financial and economic blockade of Cuba is currently causing economic losses to the tune of $100 billion to Cuba’s food importing company ALIMPORT regarding the purchase of products to American companies.

Washington’s genocidal policy continues to obstruct the purchases and there have been no actions leading to the materialization of these sales in line with normal channels, regulations and practices of international trade.


Also significantly impacting in this situation is the difficult payment conditions for Cuban importers and additional costs in storage and overstay due to bureaucratic obstacles.


This amount of money would have allowed Cuba to purchase 337,000 tons of wheat or 451,000 tons of corn or 109,000 tons of chicken for the people’s consumption.


Data from the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs included in the Cuban report on Resolution 64/4 to the UN General Assembly demanding the end of the US blockade of the island indicate that American subsidiaries in third countries are banned from any type of transaction with Cuban companies.


The ongoing merging process involving big international companies, as well as world strategic alliances in which the United States has a significant participation, reinforces the extraterritorial nature of the blockade.


According to a report released in June 2009 by the US International Trade Commission, an eventual elimination of Cuban financial restrictions and travel ban would lead to an increase of US agricultural sales to the Caribbean nation. The document states that the amount of sales would be between $924 million and $1.2 billion, that is, 64% of all the Cuban agricultural purchases.http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=3495


Cuba, August 17th, 2010.- The US Government pressed charges against the British Barclays Bank PLC for violating US laws after engaging in financial transactions with banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.

The bank was accused of breaking the ‘Trading with the Enemy Act’ and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

According to the accusation, Barclays Bank violated US and New York state criminal laws from March 1995 to September 2006 by allowing the movement of nearly $500 million through the US financial system on behalf of banks from the above-mentioned countries.

Regulations of the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control as well as the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton acts complete the economic, financial and trade blockade imposed by the US government on Cuba for almost 50 years. (Cubaminrex - ACN)http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=3404



Cuban ophthalmologic services can not make use of the Transpupillary Thermotherapy, with the use of a surgical microscope, to treat children suffering from a tumor called retinoblastoma, that is, cancer of the retina, because it is impossible to buy the equipment required to apply this treatment, since they can only be bought from the US company Iris Medical Instruments. Without that technology it is impossible to treat retina tumors so that children could preserve the affected eye.


Cuban children have no access to a medicine called Sevofluorane, the most advanced general inhalation anesthetic drug, that is, an anesthetic to operate on children, because its manufacturer, the American company ABBOT, is not allowed to sell its products to Cuba.


Cuba cannot purchase either the Optical Coherence Tomographer (OCT) to examine the retina and the optical nerve, manufactured by the German company Carl Zeiss, because some of its components are provided for by the US company Humphrey.


The onerous and discriminatory conditions that dominate the purchase of American foodstuffs, which are allegedly covered by a humanitarian exemption, while all other international trade standards are violated, resulted in the dramatic reduction of these operations last year. This reality not only affects our people but also American farmers. It would be untruthful of anyone here in this room to describe once again as a “trading partner” a country to which Cuba can not sell a single dose of medicine or a single gram of nickel.


Although Washington has very selectively authorized some cultural, academic and scientific exchanges, these are still subject to severe restrictions; many of these projects could not materialize due to the denial of licenses, visas and other permits. It is hardly known that Cuban artists are forbidden to receive any payment for their performances in this country. The persecution against Cuban properties and assets as well as commercial and financial transfers to and from Cuba or those involving institutions or individuals based in our country has intensified.


The fines imposed by the Treasury and Justice Departments on American and European entities during the last year for their transactions with Cuba, among other States, have totaled more than 800 million dollars.
The US government, in an obvious escalation, has also appropriated the transfers made by Cuba in other countries’ currencies, as the Euro. The confiscation of a transfer of more than 107 thousand Euros that belonged to the Cuban company Cubana de Aviación, which was made through the Banco Popular Español from Madrid to Moscow, was an outright theft.


The direct economic damage caused to the Cuban people by the implementation of the blockade during the last 50 years is worth more than 751 billion dollars according to the present value of that currency.
http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=3739

[Blamelessman]

I'm willing to bet Castro is in the drug trial study. That man will live way into his 100s. :)


Hope so! The man is awesome! :lol:

[Fulanito de Tal]

because only america embargoes cuba, it stops no other country from buying american products and selling them to cuba.

That statement is absolutely wrong. Anything that has US made parts is prohibited from being sold to Cuba. So all of the medical equipment that is made in the the US or in other countries with parts made in the US (even a screw) cannot be sold to Cuba...among other sanctions.

Read the article at the following link so you have an idea of what you are writing about instead of being a mindless drone. Zzzttt ztztztt zzzzttttt command me, masterrrrr....error....cannot originate proper opinionzdsssssss...<crash>


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f8-47a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf

[Bud Struggle]

As I said before: good for Cuba. But some small countries havve always done will in world class achevement. Switzerland for example has the hightest number of Nobel Prize winners per capita. (Not exactly apples to apples with "cures for cancer" but it gives an example of what small countries could do.)

Maybe we should follow the Swiss example of Capitalism. they seem to be doing pretty well fo themselves.

[Ele'ill]

How is the United States glorified in the same fashion? What are the differences between both?

[mykittyhasaboner]

As I said before: good for Cuba. But some small countries havve always done will in world class achevement. Switzerland for example has the hightest number of Nobel Prize winners per capita. (Not exactly apples to apples with "cures for cancer" but it gives an example of what small countries could do.)

Maybe we should follow the Swiss example of Capitalism. they seem to be doing pretty well fo themselves.

i think you misunderstood the point....Switzerland is a small country sandwiched between giants of continental Europe. Small country sure, it takes only a few hours to ride through it by train, but it's an industrialized western european state with all the characteristics of say Germany or France.

Cuba is a small island in the Carribean which was for 400 years colonized by Spain and the US, and still inherits aspects of such colonial backwardness. Despite this, their social organization is superior to that of capitalist states and this is the primary reason why Cuba is advanced in the field of medicine.

The comparison is kind of ridiculous if you don't mind me saying so.

[Bud Struggle]

i think you misunderstood the point....Switzerland is a small country sandwiched between giants of continental Europe. Small country sure, it takes only a few hours to ride through it by train, but it's an industrialized western european state with all the characteristics of say Germany or France.

Cuba is a small island in the Carribean which was for 400 years colonized by Spain and the US, and still inherits aspects of such colonial backwardness. Despite this, their social organization is superior to that of capitalist states and this is the primary reason why Cuba is advanced in the field of medicine.

The comparison is kind of ridiculous if you don't mind me saying so.

All quite true. My point wasn't to praise Switzerland so much as to say that anything can come out of anywhere if really talented people are supported by their government to good things. It is completely clear that Cuba did just this things. As a matter of fact what Cuba did could be done in a hundred of little (and big) countries around the world if people were given the chance. The average Cuban isn't any smarter than the average Costa Rican (as an example) but to Cuba's credit--they took the best and brightest their country had to offer and hit a home run.

Switzerland seems to do that, too. America does it to some extent (with a pile of waste, too.) I just wonder if failure for a country to achieve is a Socialist/Capitalist thing or a problem of self identity. The SU was pretty good at it--but I wonder if they did good science for the sake of science or because they were in a Cold War.

I don't know--but if Cuba makes the world a better place by doing good science. More power to them.

[ComradeMan]

All quite true. My point wasn't to praise Switzerland so much as to say that anything can come out of anywhere if really talented people are supported by their government to good things.

Like a banking system that is notorious..... ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress_lawsuit_against_Swiss_banks

[Frosty Weasel]

Great news for humanity. Shame on those who would cloud any part of this because it doesn't come from Umerica.

[Robert]

You mean "UmeriKKKa."

Sorry, but I'm real picky about spelling.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

You mean "UmeriKKKa."

Sorry, but I'm real picky about spelling.

lulz.

[RGacky3]

I just wonder if failure for a country to achieve is a Socialist/Capitalist thing or a problem of self identity. The SU was pretty good at it--but I wonder if they did good science for the sake of science or because they were in a Cold War.


It IS a socialist thing, even in the US tons of brake throughs come from government funded projects (which are then routienly handed off to private industry to make a profit on it for no reason other than profit). The best and the brightest in the US don't go on to cure cancer, some of them do, but they don't get financially rewarded for it, most of them work for goldman sachs style companies and redistribute wealth upwards.

So this IS a socialist thing, its not about who has smarter people, its about what incentives society gives those smarter people.

[Bud Struggle]

It IS a socialist thing, even in the US tons of brake throughs come from government funded projects (which are then routienly handed off to private industry to make a profit on it for no reason other than profit). The best and the brightest in the US don't go on to cure cancer, some of them do, but they don't get financially rewarded for it, most of them work for goldman sachs style companies and redistribute wealth upwards.

So this IS a socialist thing, its not about who has smarter people, its about what incentives society gives those smarter people.

Then what you are saying is that whatever the US is doing--it's doing it pretty well. A nice mixture in government and business funding.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_nob_pri_lau-people-nobel-prize-laureates

[RGacky3]

No thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying the profit motive does not equate to innovation that benefits society.

I'm saying some of what the US is doing is positive, and much of it is a waste, infact most of it is a waste because most of the best minds go to private companies which no not innovate these sort of things, so the US system is pretty crappy, sorry TeamAmerica.

[American Assasin]

It seems to me that that it is a Ukrainian-Cuban joint project. Ukraine is an ally of the US and part of the free market, therefore this creation was not solely a profit free project (that what I would think).

[Bud Struggle]

No thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying the profit motive does not equate to innovation that benefits society.

I'm saying some of what the US is doing is positive, and much of it is a waste, infact most of it is a waste because most of the best minds go to private companies which no not innovate these sort of things, so the US system is pretty crappy, sorry TeamAmerica.

All this on the basis of one breakthrough from Cuba?

Small countries with populations similar to Cubas like Switzerland or Sweden or the Netherlands have done pretty well comming up with innovative breakthroughs. Medical and scientific breakthroughs have been consistantly comming from Capitalist countries.

And even Cuba didn't invent cancer research itself--they did it on the backs of work done by Capitalist countries. I'm not saying Cuba didn't do a good job--but over all countries with schools like Harvard or Cambridge do much better jobs.

[RGacky3]

All this on the basis of one breakthrough from Cuba?


No, on this breakthorugh, and the vast majority of them everywhere.

But according to the free market arguments, innovation should NOT happen in Cuba doe to the lack of a profit motive.


Small countries with populations similar to Cubas like Switzerland or Sweden or the Netherlands have done pretty well comming up with innovative breakthroughs. Medical and scientific breakthroughs have been consistantly comming from Capitalist countries.


But not through the Capitalist system. Those european countries (with the exception of Switzerland, but even switzerland has massiave government funded projects) main brakethroughs came from the socialist part of the system.


And even Cuba didn't invent cancer research itself--they did it on the backs of work done by Capitalist countries.

Thats a redicuous argument, all science is done on the back of past science.

What we are attacking here is the arguemnt of PROFIT MOTIVE = POSITIVE INNOVATION, and SOCIALISM = NO INNOVATION what part of that don't you get? Or whats your argument?

[Bud Struggle]

No, on this breakthorugh, and the vast majority of them everywhere.

But according to the free market arguments, innovation should NOT happen in Cuba doe to the lack of a profit motive. Well yea, but that laissez faire system seems have died about the time Marx did so you seem to be arguing with a system that dosn't exist any longer. Business and government fund schools like Harvard where reasarch is being done. That's how the Capitalist system works.


But not through the Capitalist system. Those european countries (with the exception of Switzerland, but even switzerland has massiave government funded projects) main brakethroughs came from the socialist part of the system. You seem to think government funding means "Socialism." Most breakthroughs are from both private and public reasarch. It's a good workable system. The fact that Cuba came up with one innovation isn't exactly a great reason to change around a system that has worked so well in the past.


Thats a redicuous argument, all science is done on the back of past science. And Cuba's was done on the back pf work done in Capitalist countries. Fine.


What we are attacking here is the arguemnt of PROFIT MOTIVE = POSITIVE INNOVATION, and SOCIALISM = NO INNOVATION what part of that don't you get? Or whats your argument? I'm saying the system works fine the way it is: a condominium of both the public and private. Just because one innovation (no matter how worthy) comes down the pike frorm a Socialist country. Harvard-a private institution--has 48 Nobel Prizes. I'm sure a there was public money involved in most of the reasarch they went into those prizes, but it was done in a private setting.

When Cuba does as well as Harvard--then maybe it will be time to rethink the political order of things.

[RGacky3]

Business and government fund schools like Harvard where reasarch is being done. That's how the Capitalist system works.


Almost all of the funding that goes to things like medicine (that benefits the public) and the such comes from the state, and then is handed over to private buisiness, buisiness does'nt fund that stuff.

Harvard, a private university is a NON-PROFIT university too, which mean, its not part of the Capitlaist system.


When Cuba does as well as Harvard--then maybe it will be time to rethink the political order of things.

As far as health care its doing far better than the "for profit" system.

Again, you hav'nt made an argument defending the notion that profit incentive = positive innovation for society, and that socialism = much less incentive.

[American Assasin]

We do not live in a completely free market for government regulates property and ideas. We could be living what could be properly termed as a Semi-Fascistic system, for there was private property in Mussolinis Italy, and Nazi Germany, but it was Extremely regulated, and Government and Business was working together to achieve their goals.

[Bud Struggle]

Almost all of the funding that goes to things like medicine (that benefits the public) and the such comes from the state, and then is handed over to private buisiness, buisiness does'nt fund that stuff. The government funds a large part of it and business funds other parts of it. They work together pretty nicely.


Harvard, a private university is a NON-PROFIT university too, which mean, its not part of the Capitlaist system. Harvard and its endowment is completely funded by private means. It's non profit in that they don't pay taxes--but Harvard is a private corporation.


As far as health care its doing far better than the "for profit" system. It does well in healthcare it does lousy in Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. It's a trade off.


Again, you hav'nt made an argument defending the notion that profit incentive = positive innovation for society, and that socialism = much less incentive. I'm not a 19th Century Robber Baron, I'm a 21st Century American.. I like the general mix of government and business in American society.

And FWIW: I disagree with the Cuban embargo--but that's more Cuban politics than American politics. At this point I don't think the great majority of Americans want it but the Cuban ex-pats have a very strong voice in Florida and nation government in this matter.

[RGacky3]

The government funds a large part of it and business funds other parts of it. They work together pretty nicely.


What part is buisiness funding? And I'd like to know what awesome brake throughs were funded by buisiness as "for profit" ventures. I'm sure some specific ventures are funded by private buisiness, but I'm also sure that these are mainly things that don't really help society at all, (and thus is not state funded), but makes a great profit.


Harvard and its endowment is completely funded by private means. It's non profit in that they don't pay taxes--but Harvard is a private corporation.


Its not completely funded by private means, not by a long shot, or if it is I want to see some numbers.

The profit motive is the CORNERSTONE of capitalism, if its non profit its not part of the capitalist system.


It does well in healthcare it does lousy in Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. It's a trade off.


Most of the world does better than the US in healthcare, because they have public healthcare.

There is no trade off, its not like public healthcare caused Cubas economic problems.


I'm not a 19th Century Robber Baron, I'm a 21st Century American.. I like the general mix of government and business in American society.


Well if your supporting the buisiness part, make an argument for it.


but that's more Cuban politics than American politics.

No its not, Cuba did'nt make the embargo.


At this point I don't think the great majority of Americans want it but the Cuban ex-pats have a very strong voice in Florida and nation government in this matter.

The desicion is NOT made due to the Ex pats, you can read about this in declassified kennedy documents, its an ideological threat to the region.

[Bud Struggle]

What part is buisiness funding? And I'd like to know what awesome brake throughs were funded by buisiness as "for profit" ventures. I'm sure some specific ventures are funded by private buisiness, but I'm also sure that these are mainly things that don't really help society at all, (and thus is not state funded), but makes a great profit. Private citizens put Harvard together. It's not a state institution. Now if public money come in to fund things--so much the better.


Its not completely funded by private means, not by a long shot, or if it is I want to see some numbers. The endowment of Harvard is private. People and companies put money in to make it go. It's not a publicly financed institution. I'll see if I can get a picture of the endowment.


The profit motive is the CORNERSTONE of capitalism, if its non profit its not part of the capitalist system. Did you see the thread on Strawman?


Most of the world does better than the US in healthcare, because they have public healthcare. By most you mean at best 10%? Yea there are a lot of "botique" countries like Sweden and Holland with populations under that of Philadelphia that can do pretty well riding on the crest of Capitalism. I have no problem with their "Socialism" but American post WWII Capitalism made it happen.


There is no trade off, its not like public healthcare caused Cubas economic problems. They are hungry over there, Brother.


Well if your supporting the buisiness part, make an argument for it. Unlike 95% of Revleft I don't support any 19th Century political philosophies. I support the status quo as represented by the American economic and political philosophies.




No its not, Cuba did'nt make the embargo. I didn't say Cuba did.


The desicion is NOT made due to the Ex pats, you can read about this in declassified kennedy documents, its an ideological threat to the region. Get out of your Norwegian Hot Tub Time Machine! That was then. For the past 20 years nobody except for the idiot expat Cubans cared at all about that stuff.

[RGacky3]

Private citizens put Harvard together. It's not a state institution. Now if public money come in to fund things--so much the better.


Its not an official state insitution, but nor is it a Capitalist institution (i.e. a buisiness), meaining, its not part of the capitalist system.


Did you see the thread on Strawman?


Yup, thats not a strawman though, Capitalism is based on the profit motive (along with private property and free markets), every Capitalist would agree with that.


By most you mean at best 10%? Yea there are a lot of "botique" countries like Sweden and Holland with populations under that of Philadelphia that can do pretty well riding on the crest of Capitalism. I have no problem with their "Socialism" but American post WWII Capitalism made it happen.


EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY, not just "botique" countries, or whatever, (btw, smaller countries have smaller economies so thats really not an argument), no ones riding on the crest of Capitalism.

Post WW2 what helped europe along was the marshall plan, a state program, and the europeans managed to bring about some public control of that wealth, the US did'nt, now the US is in a pretty bad shape.

By most I mean almost every country has a more efficiant health care (i.e. results to cost) than the United States.

Capitalist health care system is a joke.


They are hungry over there, Brother.


First of all, not really, second of all, no corrolation to public healthcare, they are hungry many places in that part of the world.


I support the status quo as represented by the American economic and political philosophies.


There is no "American" economic or political philosophy, different americans have different philosophy, but if you support the American Status quo, your gonna have a hard fight defending it.


Get out of your Norwegian Hot Tub Time Machine! That was then. For the past 20 years nobody except for the idiot expat Cubans cared at all about that stuff.

That was then, and that was when the embargo started, and the reason its still there is for the same reason it started, I'd be willing to bet theres a bunch more CHineese ex pats, but we don't embargo china do we. Things hav'nt changed, America still wants control of the region.

The fact that you think that America is suddenly magically different in nature than its been for all of history makes you kind of naive, but it does'nt supprise me for someone that still falls for the patriotic propeganda they tell elementry school kids.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not a straw-man Bud. The profit motive (In a market economy) is the cornerstone of the capitalist system; interest and rents.

[Revolution starts with U]

Unlike 95% of Revleft I don't support any 19th Century political philosophies. I support the status quo as represented by the American economic and political philosophies

Guilt by association, and an appeal to authority fallacy. You can do better than that Bud

[Bud Struggle]

^^^I was saying that I don't support a strict Capitalist system. It isn't 100 years ago when the forces of Communism were in direct opposition to those of Communism. You want to know why there isn't any real Communist movements in the World--they've been co-opted by the Capitalist system. People found out a long time ago that you don't need Marxism and all of that class struggle/class consciusness jargon. All you need is a Capitalism tempered by government control like we have here in the US.

Read up on FDR--things changed considerably after him.

You and Gack want me to argue something I don't believe in.

And
:Unlike 95% of Revleft I don't support any 19th Century political philosophies. was a sarcastic joke. :)

[RGacky3]

I support the status quo as represented by the American economic and political philosophies

BTW, American economic and political philosophies (in theory) are from the 17th and 18th century, so your actually way behind the Marxists.

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, American economic and political philosophies (in theory) are from the 17th and 18th century, so your actually way behind the Marxists.

No the economic philosophy is from the 1930s and the political philosophy is from the 1960s/1970s. Now the Tea Partiers on the other hand do want to go back that far.

[RGacky3]

Read up on FDR--things changed considerably after him.


Read up on Reagan things changed considerably after him, Corporatism (Reaganomics), Anti-freedom (Patriot act and the such), economic imperialism (neo-liberalism), and military imperialism (neo-cons) are now the status quo.

If thats what you support so be it, but its an uphill battle.


You want to know why there isn't any real Communist movements in the World--they've been co-opted by the Capitalist system. People found out a long time ago that you don't need Marxism and all of that class struggle/class consciusness jargon. All you need is a Capitalism tempered by government control like we have here in the US.


Bud, you are SOOOO out of touch with the entire world, its almost as if you've been in a Box listening to American propeganda your whole life.

THere are TONS of anti-Capitalist and SOcialist movements all ove the world, class struggle is HUGE all over the world. Your so out of touch its amazing, you still live in a 1980s elementary class room doing the pledge.

[RGacky3]

No the economic philosophy is from the 1930s and the political philosophy is from the 1960s/1970s.

If by the 1930s you mean Hoover than maybe, but if you mean FDR you hav'nt been paying attention since the 80s.

political philosophy from the 60s/70s? What are you talking about?


Now the Tea Partiers on the other hand do want to go back that far.

They don't really, they don't even know what was going on back then.

[Revolution starts with U]

I was saying that I don't support a strict Capitalist system. It isn't 100 years ago when the forces of Communism were in direct opposition to those of Communism. You want to know why there isn't any real Communist movements in the World--they've been co-opted by the Capitalist system.
I agree, in a sense. It was genious of the capitalists to make revolution a marketing tool. I once seen a commercial where the ceo of a company was "standing up to the man." But YOU ARE THE MAN?!?!?!!? lol... che t'shirts are the worst of all. Anyone who wears a che t-shirt (made by a capitalist business) has not thought about what he is doing at all.
BUt I disagree in another sense. It all depends on how you define socialism. The workers who took sat-in their factory until the banks extended credit... socialism.
The factory owner who gave ownership to his workers... socialism.
The various strikes and civil rights movements... socialism.


People found out a long time ago that you don't need Marxism and all of that class struggle/class consciusness jargon. All you need is a Capitalism tempered by government control like we have here in the US.

People have been hegemonized into the thinking the capitalist system is sustainable. But the system is still falling apart at the seams.
When people mature and realize that "property" is an incoherent phenomenon and "profit" is usury (except for self-employed, than it just becomes payment), maybe we can start sorting these problems out.


Read up on FDR--things changed considerably after him.

Tho I respect FDR for his contributions to progress.. the New Deal was revolution insurance, plain and simple. It is no coincidence to me that the implementer of the New Deal came from one of the richest aristocratic families in capitalism. (Especially when he has a quote saying "nothing in politics happens by accident)


You and Gack want me to argue something I don't believe in.

No, I know you don't support laissez faire, minarchism, or ancap. But the profit motive is the basis of the capitalist sytem, even the modern one.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, you are SOOOO out of touch with the entire world, its almost as if you've been in a Box listening to American propeganda your whole life.

THere are TONS of anti-Capitalist and SOcialist movements all ove the world, class struggle is HUGE all over the world. Your so out of touch its amazing, you still live in a 1980s elementary class room doing the pledge.

And they always loose. Each and every time. Just like the Fascists--who are also HUGE all over the world. They loose too. Yea there's one man shoes like Cuba which is a spent force, and Chaves who's Revolution is all tied up in his personae, and there are all sorts of people running around on the forests with AK 47s, but as ACTUAL political forces--nobody takes them seriously.

Look--in Tunisia--there is a Revolution going on and it won't come close to being Communistic. They will turn to Capitalsim and Democracy as much as they can get it. That's where the world is. That and in Islamic revolutions.

[RGacky3]

And they always loose. Each and every time.

No, they don't, thats why we have an 8 hour work day, thats why we have unions, thats why Europe has many social democracies, thats why there are free Indigenous groups, thats why there are many worker owned Companies. Thats why aparteid ended (mostly by socialist organization's efforts) thats why segregation ended (again, mostly socialist's efforts), thats why there are weekends, thats why there are child labor laws, and so on and so forth, its not all or nothing Bud.

Maybe the people loose in America more often, but thats your problem.


and Chaves who's Revolution is all tied up in his personae

YOu don't know what your talking about there, the history of Venezuela and socialism goes way back.


but as ACTUAL political forces--nobody takes them seriously.


Considering the entire "drug war" was really just an attempt to beat Latin American leftists, considering Countelpro (now the patriot act), considering the HUGE amounts of effort put into destroying unions, I'd say quite a few powerful people take them seriously.


Look--in Tunisia--there is a Revolution going on and it won't come close to being Communistic. They will turn to Capitalsim and Democracy as much as they can get it. That's where the world is. That and in Islamic revolutions.

I don't know what you mean by "Communistic" (but I'm guessing its a strawman, because you only want to argue against leninism because you hav'nt got anything on actual socialism), but when it comes to Tunesia, look at their demands, its definately an economic aspect.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree, in a sense. It was genious of the capitalists to make revolution a marketing tool. I once seen a commercial where the ceo of a company was "standing up to the man." But YOU ARE THE MAN?!?!?!!? lol... che t'shirts are the worst of all. Anyone who wears a che t-shirt (made by a capitalist business) has not thought about what he is doing at all. Fine.



BUt I disagree in another sense. It all depends on how you define socialism. The workers who took sat-in their factory until the banks extended credit... socialism.
The factory owner who gave ownership to his workers... socialism.
The various strikes and civil rights movements... socialism. Nope. All of those things USED to be Socialism but now they operate within the context of Capitalism. Capitalist Unions oppose Capitalist Management. There's no class warefare in all of that. No class consciousness. No desire to take over the means of production. No desire for Revolution. No demand for control. No revoloution. Just a bunch of people that want a couple more bucks--and sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. Socialism has been neutered by Capitalism to the point Unions are a PART of business. Look at the Auto worker's share in taking over GM. They didn't take it over to run it--they took it over as an investment. There's quitre aq difference.


People have been hegemonized into the thinking the capitalist system is sustainable. But the system is still falling apart at the seams.
When people mature and realize that "property" is an incoherent phenomenon and "profit" is usury (except for self-employed, than it just becomes payment), maybe we can start sorting these problems out. Most people have no problem with the idea of property.


Tho I respect FDR for his contributions to progress.. the New Deal was revolution insurance, plain and simple. It is no coincidence to me that the implementer of the New Deal came from one of the richest aristocratic families in capitalism. (Especially when he has a quote saying "nothing in politics happens by accident) FDR was Capitalism's response to Socialism. During the Depression almost all of America became the property of maybe--1000 men. They owned almost everything. FDR passed laws to loosen that up and get America back running. If he didn't there would have been a Revolution for sure. He circumvented that.


No, I know you don't support laissez faire, minarchism, or ancap. But the profit motive is the basis of the capitalist sytem, even the modern one. There are improtant thing the profit movive does--and there are important things the public sector does. I am for both.

[American Assasin]

Read up on Reagan things changed considerably after him, Corporatism (Reaganomics), Anti-freedom (Patriot act and the such), economic imperialism (neo-liberalism), and military imperialism (neo-cons) are now the status quo.

If thats what you support so be it, but its an uphill battle.



Bud, you are SOOOO out of touch with the entire world, its almost as if you've been in a Box listening to American propeganda your whole life.

THere are TONS of anti-Capitalist and SOcialist movements all ove the world, class struggle is HUGE all over the world. Your so out of touch its amazing, you still live in a 1980s elementary class room doing the pledge.
I would consider this post one huge post about political straw man, and the comment about the tea parties could also be considered straw man.

[Bud Struggle]

No, they don't, thats why we have an 8 hour work day, thats why we have unions, thats why Europe has many social democracies, thats why there are free Indigenous groups, thats why there are many worker owned Companies. Thats why aparteid ended (mostly by socialist organization's efforts) thats why segregation ended (again, mostly socialist's efforts), thats why there are weekends, thats why there are child labor laws, and so on and so forth, its not all or nothing Bud.

Maybe the people loose in America more often, but thats your problem. No. The unions are part of the American Democratic and Capitalist system. They aren't something seperate going it's own way. They certainly aren't Revolutionary and they certainly don't want any changes in the system. They are part of what Capitalism looks like in the 21st century.


YOu don't know what your talking about there, the history of Venezuela and socialism goes way back. There's no "people's movement" in Venezuela. He's just the local egomaniac and when he;s gone it will be business as usual.




Considering the entire "drug war" was really just an attempt to beat Latin American leftists, considering Countelpro (now the patriot act), considering the HUGE amounts of effort put into destroying unions, I'd say quite a few powerful people take them seriously. That's actually a good point--but that's how those government types are. They are taking a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs pretty seriously, too.




I don't know what you mean by "Communistic" (but I'm guessing its a strawman, because you only want to argue against leninism because you hav'nt got anything on actual socialism), but when it comes to Tunesia, look at their demands, its definately an economic aspect. How's this--because the terms are problematical: Communist is "Revolutionary," and Socialist is "non Revolutionary."

And FWIW: I have no problem with NON Revolutionary people as in Unions making demands and bargining for wages. There's nothing more Capitalist than bargining. I have no problem with people wanting and getting healthcare--as long as it's done democratically within the system. What I don't want is Revolution--because while we might get a better world after on, we might not.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No. The unions are part of the American Democratic and Capitalist system.

No they aren't, they did not originate in any political or economic documents which founded the American bourgeois republic. Unions formed as a result of class struggle, and when the state couldn't handle them anymore, political forces within the US government acted to absorb unions into the state apparatus and succeeded.


They aren't something seperate going it's own way. They certainly aren't Revolutionary and they certainly don't want any changes in the system. They are part of what Capitalism looks like in the 21st century.
Honestly, i think you misunderstand what unions are. Official unions in the US are part of the state but this is not the case in every country, and actual unions have nothing to do with "capitalism" in so far as they don't perform any required functions which uphold capitalism. In fact they are part of capitalism's contradictory social organization, which despite carrying out private commodity production, reflect the systems growing tendency towards centralization and socialization of industries. Worker's unions definitely aren't as you describe them.


There's no "people's movement" in Venezuela.How do you think Chavez was elected, and re-elected, despite coups and all kinds of things used by political opponents against the PSUV?



He's just the local egomaniac and when he;s gone it will be business as usual.If he is ousted in a coup, which is the only way i believe he could be removed from office, this would spark all kinds of rebellion from the people. It most certainly wouldn't be "business as usual".




That's actually a good point--but that's how those government types are. They are taking a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs pretty seriously, too.i'm not sure why your making this comparison. Islamist militants are representative of bourgeois class interests, clearly marked by their inclusion in parliamentary alliances all over the "middle east" as well as their opposition towards communist and workers organizations. They represent a threat to the leading bloc of capital, but no where near as much as the actual workers who create all the wealth "western" capital has to brag about.




How's this--because the terms are problematical: Communist is "Revolutionary," and Socialist is "non Revolutionary." This is your defintion, but not the definition of the 20th century socialist movement, and certainly not the more refined definitions that will become prominent this century. The 20th century socialist movement made great efforts to differentiate between "socialism" and "communism". Socialism is that society which the rule of capital has been overthrown by the working class (revolution) but has not yet eliminated "bourgeois right", class, markets, and of course a state. Communism is that society which has eliminated all of those things.


And FWIW: I have no problem with NON Revolutionary people as in Unions making demands and bargining for wages. There's nothing more Capitalist than bargining.Bargaining for commodities in some market is not the same as workers "bargaining" for higher wages, this is part of the class struggle, specifically the economic aspect of it.



I have no problem with people wanting and getting healthcare--as long as it's done democratically within the system. What I don't want is Revolution--because while we might get a better world after on, we might not.Well perhaps you should decide after you understand what revolution in the 21st century entails. You could say the exact same thing about reforms within the system. We could have a better world after, or we might just have the same shit. Revolution guaruntees that "business as usual," which is so notoriously bad for the people of the world, will not go on as it is now. All revolutions in history have coincided with some kind of improvement from the past society.

European feudalism meant that slaves were no longer the basis of production, that farmers had their own land, even though they worked for assholes with fancy clothes and hats who hired guys in shiny suits to kill naughty farmers and plunder neighboring societies.

Capitalism meant that the whole world has been united by the world market, that the whole of society could be fed by only a portion of it's laborers, and that social production as well as technological progress is the goal. However it also meant that laborers were stripped of their means of subsistence, that incredible disenfranchisement of entire nations and colonized peoples were oppressed and exploited by a handful of european national bourgeois. The reintroduction of slavery was also a very brutal and notorious aspect of early bourgeois society, for the purpose of extracting raw materials with which to make finished goods. The maximization of profit became the foremost goal for all industrial societieis, reflecting the dominance of the class of people who actually own the industrial capacity of society--including the owners of labor power, factories, land, etc.

Socialism in the 20th century and in the 21st will undoubtedly mark a turning point towards real human history, so great that i won't degrade this process by writing a mere paragraph.

If you don't support revolution, im sorry, but your on the losing side.

[Bud Struggle]

No they aren't, they did not originate in any political or economic documents which founded the American bourgeois republic. Unions formed as a result of class struggle, and when the state couldn't handle them anymore, political forces within the US government acted to absorb unions into the state apparatus and succeeded. You are of course correct that unions originated outside of Capitalism--but since the 30s the've been co-opted by Capitalism. Capitalism constantly grows and changes and adapts to its enviorns. The assimalation of unions was one of the biggest achievements of modern Capitalism.


Honestly, i think you misunderstand what unions are. Official unions in the US are part of the state but this is not the case in every country, and actual unions have nothing to do with "capitalism" in so far as they don't perform any required functions which uphold capitalism. In fact they are part of capitalism's contradictory social organization, which despite carrying out private commodity production, reflect the systems growing tendency towards centralization and socialization of industries. Worker's unions definitely aren't as you describe them. Oh I know there are things like the IWW--I used to be a member. And I know unions in different countries do different things. But in industrilized America where unions only count for something like 8 or 9% of the non govrment workforce they have been co-opted by business. Union contract negotiations are a regular part of business dealings of most major manufacturing companies. The unions have their lawyers and negotiators and so do the businesses. Really it's like any other contract negotiation.


How do you think Chavez was elected, and re-elected, despite coups and all kinds of things used by political opponents against the PSUV? Oh HE's popular--but the cult of personality isn't what Communism is all about.


If he is ousted in a coup, which is the only way i believe he could be removed from office, this would spark all kinds of rebellion from the people. It most certainly wouldn't be "business as usual". If he's pousted in a coup--I certainly hope the USA has NOTHING to do with it. It is not America's business.


i'm not sure why your making this comparison. Islamist militants are representative of bourgeois class interests, clearly marked by their inclusion in parliamentary alliances all over the "middle east" as well as their opposition towards communist and workers organizations. They represent a threat to the leading bloc of capital, but no where near as much as the actual workers who create all the wealth "western" capital has to brag about. Sorry for being vague. I just meant that the CIA and those that "watch over" America are a little more touchy than they need to be. Most isms really aren't worth fighting wars over--as we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.


This is your defintion, but not the definition of the 20th century socialist movement, and certainly not the more refined definitions that will become prominent this century. The 20th century socialist movement made great efforts to differentiate between "socialism" and "communism". Socialism is that society which the rule of capital has been overthrown by the working class (revolution) but has not yet eliminated "bourgeois right", class, markets, and of course a state. Communism is that society which has eliminated all of those things. Yes, thank you for the definition--what Gack and I are trying to do is settle on some terms between ourselves on what to call the various permutations of Communism. Gack doesn't want to use the term Communism at all and I used it too frequently. Let the Gackster sort this one out. :D


Bargaining for commodities in some market is not the same as workers "bargaining" for higher wages, this is part of the class struggle, specifically the economic aspect of it. I think that USED to be the case--now I think it's business as usual. I've never been in union negotiations--but my wife a former exec in HR in a major US business has--and her take is that corporations went about with unions as they did with all their other negotiations and felt that unions were pretty rote in the way they did business also.


Well perhaps you should decide after you understand what revolution in the 21st century entails. You could say the exact same thing about reforms within the system. We could have a better world after, or we might just have the same shit. Revolution guaruntees that "business as usual," which is so notoriously bad for the people of the world, will not go on as it is now. All revolutions in history have coincided with some kind of improvement from the past society. I'm afraid of a Peron or a Franco or a Hitler or a Napoleon--or even a Stalin. I'm not as sanguine as you Communists about the outcome of such an event. Honestly if I kould KNOW that it would make the world a better place--I'd be all for it.


European feudalism meant that slaves were no longer the basis of production, that farmers had their own land, even though they worked for assholes with fancy clothes and hats who hired guys in shiny suits to kill naughty farmers and plunder neighboring societies.

Capitalism meant that the whole world has been united by the world market, that the whole of society could be fed by only a portion of it's laborers, and that social production as well as technological progress is the goal. However it also meant that laborers were stripped of their means of subsistence, that incredible disenfranchisement of entire nations and colonized peoples were oppressed and exploited by a handful of european national bourgeois. The reintroduction of slavery was also a very brutal and notorious aspect of early bourgeois society, for the purpose of extracting raw materials with which to make finished goods. The maximization of profit became the foremost goal for all industrial societieis, reflecting the dominance of the class of people who actually own the industrial capacity of society--including the owners of labor power, factories, land, etc.

Socialism in the 20th century and in the 21st will undoubtedly mark a turning point towards real human history, so great that i won't degrade this process by writing a mere paragraph.

If you don't support revolution, im sorry, but your on the losing side.

Thank you for the observation--but I just don't think things will go down that way. I could be wrong--hell, I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see that bright shiney day comming for all humanity. I'm too much of a pessimist, or is it realist.

[Robert]

Revolution guaruntees that "business as usual," which is so notoriously bad for the people of the world, will not go on as it is now.This sounds a lot like "we will bury you." And not to make another invidious comparison in the same paragraph, but the Thousand Year Reich lasted -- what? -- 11 years or so?

Seriously, how are you going to consecrate and cement a socialist revolution without force? With a Cuban style constitution? Mere trust in the elevated class consciousness of a pro labor, anti-theocratic, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist majority? Or do you accept as I do that force will be required to keep reactionaries in line?

[mykittyhasaboner]

You are of course correct that unions originated outside of Capitalism--but since the 30s the've been co-opted by Capitalism. Capitalism constantly grows and changes and adapts to its enviorns. The assimalation of unions was one of the biggest achievements of modern Capitalism.

Unions did not originate "outside" of capitalism, rather unions formed as a result of the contradictory social formation of bourgeois society. Workers, who have nothing but their labor power to sell, labor in order to create wealth. They don't own the product of this labor, it is appropriated by the owner of their labor power, the means of production, and the commodities produced by the worker's labor. They or merely paid the market price for their labor, leaving with next to nothing to support themselves with. All the while the owners of this process of production benefit from the labor of workers. The workers organize against this. That's where unions come into play.


Oh I know there are things like the IWW--I used to be a member. And I know unions in different countries do different things. But in industrilized America where unions only count for something like 8 or 9% of the non govrment workforce they have been co-opted by business. Union contract negotiations are a regular part of business dealings of most major manufacturing companies. The unions have their lawyers and negotiators and so do the businesses. Really it's like any other contract negotiation.Your basically talking about "official" unions in the US. Such organizations long ago lost their character as a means of economic struggle.



If he's pousted in a coup--I certainly hope the USA has NOTHING to do with it. It is not America's business.This is really naive. Who else would be responsible?


Sorry for being vague. I just meant that the CIA and those that "watch over" America are a little more touchy than they need to be. Most isms really aren't worth fighting wars over--as we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.No wars are fought over "isms". The US government is fighting wars for blatant interests.



I'm afraid of a Peron or a Franco or a Hitler or a Napoleon--or even a Stalin. I'm not as sanguine as you Communists about the outcome of such an event. Honestly if I kould KNOW that it would make the world a better place--I'd be all for it. Well your afraid of nothing in reality....just some kind of idealistic personifications which leave a bad taste in your mouth. i'm not even sure why you mentioned any of those names except for Stalin.




Thank you for the observation--but I just don't think things will go down that way. I could be wrong--hell, I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see that bright shiney day comming for all humanity. I'm too much of a pessimist, or is it realist.i think your problem is that you view all of this talk about revolution as a "bright shiny day".




This sounds a lot like "we will bury you."

Depending on how you interperet that phrase, you could either be referring to some kind of literal "burying" of the US or that the USSR would have eventually lead a superior world system in overtaking capitalism.

Either way, its not what i was saying. Social revolution implies that a different class is now in the dominant position, making "business as usual" a thing of the past. This is confirmed so many times by history it's laughable that someone would try and challenge such a basic observation.



And not to make another invidious comparison in the same paragraph, but the Thousand Year Reich lasted -- what? -- 11 years or so?

A thousand year reich which has nothing to do with social revolution. This is a pretty stupid comparison, because i don't even know what your comparing.


Seriously, how are you going to consecrate and cement a socialist revolution without force?

By putting flowers in the barrels of guns and singing kumbayah until everyone holds hands and smokes joints all day.


With a Cuban style constitution?

That would be a start.


Mere trust in the elevated class consciousness of a pro labor, anti-theocratic, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist majority?

i don't know where "mere turst" factors into anything i've said but no.


Or do you accept as I do that force will be required to keep reactionaries in line?

Force is required in the act of revolution, which is the most authoritarian act a class can undertake.




This thread has really gone off topic and downhill.

[Bud Struggle]

Unions did not originate "outside" of capitalism, rather unions formed as a result of the contradictory social formation of bourgeois society. Workers, who have nothing but their labor power to sell, labor in order to create wealth. They don't own the product of this labor, it is appropriated by the owner of their labor power, the means of production, and the commodities produced by the worker's labor. They or merely paid the market price for their labor, leaving with next to nothing to support themselves with. All the while the owners of this process of production benefit from the labor of workers. The workers organize against this. That's where unions come into play. I understand all of that. But unions were initially in opposition to business--that is how they started. Now they have become assimilated within the system. Union negotiations is like any other business contract. That's how Capitalism grows and changes.


Your basically talking about "official" unions in the US. Such organizations long ago lost their character as a means of economic struggle. That is pretty much was I was saying. So now where are there "other" unions that look to actually change the face of labor? No doubt they are in developing countries whose businesses havent gotten around to accepting the value of unions.


This is really naive. Who else would be responsible? Reactionary forces within the country itself.


No wars are fought over "isms". The US government is fighting wars for blatant interests. I agree there, but it seems that the US is often mistaken on where its best interest lies. That was the point I was making.


Well your afraid of nothing in reality....just some kind of idealistic personifications which leave a bad taste in your mouth. i'm not even sure why you mentioned any of those names except for Stalin. If there is a Revolution I have no certainty at all that it will be a Communist one. I believe you're in Great Britain--aren't the Fascists a stronger force there than the Communists?


i think your problem is that you view all of this talk about revolution as a "bright shiny day". Could be.

[Robert]

The point, Boner, is you are making bold predictions about future trends as though you have a crystal ball. You don't.

Kruschev and Hitler were dead wrong, in their grandiose, utopian views and were fools for not leaving room for error. That's why you (collectively and specifically) remind me of both.

[Robert]

in 2010, the majority of seats in the House of Commons was won by conservatives (306), closely trailed by labour (258), and Liberal Democrats coming in at a distant third.

Neither the Communist Party, the Democratic Nationalists, Workers Revolutionary, or the BNP (those are the fascists, I gather) won any seats at all.

As in "zero." And Demogorgon is always boasting about how much more democratic the British system is. (Ok, Demo, you sold me.:lol:)

And the Communist Party of Britain was founded in 1920. Ninety years later, they're still batting ... zero.

Think they need some new material?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

[mykittyhasaboner]

That is pretty much was I was saying. So now where are there "other" unions that look to actually change the face of labor? No doubt they are in developing countries whose businesses havent gotten around to accepting the value of unions.

One could take a look at the plethora of unions involved in organizing against all kinds of cuts in Europe for example. Developing countries are likely to have laws against unions, meaning they practically do not exist with any degree of legality.




Reactionary forces within the country itself.Who would be sponsored and supported by.....?



If there is a Revolution I have no certainty at all that it will be a Communist one. I believe you're in Great Britain--aren't the Fascists a stronger force there than the Communists?Lol, i wish i lived somewhere in europe, i live in florida like you. (Don't you live in florida?)

What matters isn't what political forces appear to be strong now, because that in itself doesn't mean anything. Even for communists. What matters is what social force is actually capable of overthrowing the current state of society, and that social force is the working class.



The point, Boner, is you are making bold predictions about future trends as though you have a crystal ball. You don't.

No i'm not.


Kruschev and Hitler were dead wrong, in their grandiose, utopian views and were fools for not leaving room for error. That's why you (collectively and specifically) remind me of both.Why the fuck are you bringing up any leader of fascist states? They have nothing to do with revolution.

Khrushchev was a fool, but he had some kind of merit in boldly exclaiming that the socialism of the 20th century would defeat capitalism. Since you know, he was the leader of the state that would do so, so this was a good piece of political rhetoric. Idealistic as it was. i don't see why your comparing what i'm saying here, which is basic historical materialism, to some kind of bold prediction of the future.

You can have fun arguing with you strawmen by yourself.

[RGacky3]

No. The unions are part of the American Democratic and Capitalist system. They aren't something seperate going it's own way. They certainly aren't Revolutionary and they certainly don't want any changes in the system. They are part of what Capitalism looks like in the 21st century.


Thats like saying private shops in Cuba are part of the Socialist system.

Unions are not for profit, they are not competing in the market, they are HATED by Capitalists, hated worse than socialist parties.

They are not part of the socialist system, they are fighting against it, they are trying to undo the labor market.


There's no "people's movement" in Venezuela. He's just the local egomaniac and when he;s gone it will be business as usual.


Learn the history of Venezuela, you don't know what your talking about, as always, talking out of your ass.


That's actually a good point--but that's how those government types are. They are taking a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs pretty seriously, too.


They don't really, they just use that as an excuse to control oil in the middle east. They use drugs as an excuse to stop social movements in latin America.


How's this--because the terms are problematical: Communist is "Revolutionary," and Socialist is "non Revolutionary."


Your just making up definitions Bud, thst not how those terms are used by anyone but you.


And FWIW: I have no problem with NON Revolutionary people as in Unions making demands and bargining for wages. There's nothing more Capitalist than bargining. I have no problem with people wanting and getting healthcare--as long as it's done democratically within the system. What I don't want is Revolution--because while we might get a better world after on, we might not.

Do you know how unions got the right to unionize? Look up the history, its not pretty, it was'nt done "within" the system.



Now they have become assimilated within the system. Union negotiations is like any other business contract. That's how Capitalism grows and changes.


Do you ever have anything to back up anything you say?

BTW, if they are so much prat of Capitalism why have the last 30 years been a campain AGAINST unions?

[RGacky3]

Look, but you've done as always, lost the argument and then moved on to something else to try and avoid it.

The fact of the matter is, this is another nail in the coffin of the incentives arguement.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats like saying private shops in Cuba are part of the Socialist system. Those shops ARE. And for that matter so is the Black Market. Nothing creates a thriving Black Market better that Communism.


Unions are not for profit, they are not competing in the market, they are HATED by Capitalists, hated worse than socialist parties.

They are not part of the socialist (sic) system, they are fighting against it, they are trying to undo the labor market. Hated. What a word. Well they are "hated" like taxes are "hated," Companies rather not pay taxes--but it's part of doing business so are unions. Companies have their labor lawyers just like they have their tax lawyers. And while unions make revelent strides in the past, thing have gotten to the point of "hard fought 2% wage increases." An occasional strike happens, but nothing toreally change the course of anything.

Unions, at least in the US, are completely marginalized. Form personal expierience--they never tried to organize my work place.



Learn the history of Venezuela, you don't know what your talking about, as always, talking out of your ass. Oh I'm sure there was some sort of Socialism in Venezuela, but Chavez is another Socialist "Glorious Leader", one in a string of many that Communism just can't seem to get anywhere without.


They don't really, they just use that as an excuse to control oil in the middle east. They use drugs as an excuse to stop social movements in latin America. You are venturing into the tin foil hat area.


Your just making up definitions Bud, thst not how those terms are used by anyone but you. Fine. Let's go back to calling them Communists. It works for me and the rest of the world.


Do you know how unions got the right to unionize? Look up the history, its not pretty, it was'nt done "within" the system. No it wasn't done "within" the system. But that was history. Now adays the unions that are still around work pretty closely with the businesses negotiate with. Besides 8 or 9% of the non government workforce is where they've stagnated for a long time.


Do you ever have anything to back up anything you say?

BTW, if they are so much prat of Capitalism why have the last 30 years been a campain AGAINST unions? The same reason that companies always campaign against higher taxes. The same reason companies don't want government regulation. It's how Capitalism works--but you can't say taxes and government regulations aren't part of modern Capitalism.

Gack you are living in the 1930s. You remind me of that guy that was around here a while ago that thought China was still Communist and that the Soviet Union was comming back.

[Bud Struggle]

One could take a look at the plethora of unions involved in organizing against all kinds of cuts in Europe for example. Developing countries are likely to have laws against unions, meaning they practically do not exist with any degree of legality. Europe, especially Northern Europe, is much more highly organized than America. The unions there are part of the fabric of society. As far as developing countries--they actually do need unionization. The problem is that you need the legal and political structure of an America or an Europe fo give the unions a legal right to take hold. That may be a problem in a more lawless area--or a highly government regulated area like China.


Who would be sponsored and supported by.....? I'm saying I rather the US stay out of ther, that's all.


Lol, i wish i lived somewhere in europe, i live in florida like you. (Don't you live in florida?) Florida. Damn! I thought you were somebody exotic. Yea, I'm in Florida, too.


What matters isn't what political forces appear to be strong now, because that in itself doesn't mean anything. Even for communists. What matters is what social force is actually capable of overthrowing the current state of society, and that social force is the working class. Well yea. The working class can change America (or anywhere else) any time that it wants. Not to put words in your mouth--but you seem to think that overthrow is inevitable. I really don't think it's ever going to happen.

I think there will be some slow evolution to make things better. No Revolutions.

[RGacky3]

Those shops ARE. And for that matter so is the Black Market. Nothing creates a thriving Black Market better that Communism.


Ok, well your arguing semantics, which is the last resort of someone without an argument.


Hated. What a word. Well they are "hated" like taxes are "hated,"

Hated as in goons being hired to stop unions, as in shutting down entire shops to stop them, spending tons of money to stop them, yeah, hated, much more hated than taxes.


And while unions make revelent strides in the past, thing have gotten to the point of "hard fought 2% wage increases." An occasional strike happens, but nothing toreally change the course of anything.

Unions, at least in the US, are completely marginalized. Form personal expierience--they never tried to organize my work place.


Things have gotten to the point of marganalization of unions, not because they arn't needed, but because of 30 years of direct and firm attacks on it from both buisiness and the state.


Oh I'm sure there was some sort of Socialism in Venezuela, but Chavez is another Socialist "Glorious Leader", one in a string of many that Communism just can't seem to get anywhere without.


Again Bud, you hav'nt a clue whats going on in Venezuela, your speaking out your ass.


You are venturing into the tin foil hat area.


Not really, there has been lots of literature written about this, I can go into it if you want, Chomsky has written a lot about it, and there is lots of classified material out showing it.


Fine. Let's go back to calling them Communists. It works for me and the rest of the world.


Calling WHO communists Bud?


No it wasn't done "within" the system. But that was history. Now adays the unions that are still around work pretty closely with the businesses negotiate with. Besides 8 or 9% of the non government workforce is where they've stagnated for a long time.


Again Bud, not through natural causes.


It's how Capitalism works--but you can't say taxes and government regulations aren't part of modern Capitalism.


Sure, what I'm saying is that they are outside the Capitalist market theory, its non market manipulation.


Gack you are living in the 1930s. You remind me of that guy that was around here a while ago that thought China was still Communist and that the Soviet Union was comming back.

No Bud, I'm living now, and your living now, difference is I know whats going on, and I have the ability to analyse it and come to logical conclusions, where as you only have the ability to spit out pro-establishment talking points, your a propeganda tool.


Well yea. The working class can change America (or anywhere else) any time that it wants. Not to put words in your mouth--but you seem to think that overthrow is inevitable. I really don't think it's ever going to happen.

I think there will be some slow evolution to make things better. No Revolutions.

All evolution is caused by little revolutoins or the threat of that.

As far as the wroking class being able too, yeah, but not through the means you think, only through organization, agitation and revolutoin (meaning changing the system by attacking it).


Europe, especially Northern Europe, is much more highly organized than America.

Which is why the American working class is getting shat on :), good job America.

[Bud Struggle]

Look, but you've done as always, lost the argument and then moved on to something else to try and avoid it.

The fact of the matter is, this is another nail in the coffin of the incentives arguement.

Gack, I think you are living in a dream world. There will be some advances sure, but nothing's going to change the fundamental order of things for a long long time.

All the best, though.

[RGacky3]

What was that a response too?

[Revolution starts with U]

You are of course correct that unions originated outside of Capitalism--but since the 30s the've been co-opted by Capitalism. Capitalism constantly grows and changes and adapts to its enviorns. The assimalation of unions was one of the biggest achievements of modern Capitalism.

An interesting point. And does it not seem to you that capitalism, through both revolutionary and reformist actions, has slowly "evolved" towards socialism?


Oh I know there are things like the IWW--I used to be a member. And I know unions in different countries do different things. But in industrilized America where unions only count for something like 8 or 9% of the non govrment workforce they have been co-opted by business. Union contract negotiations are a regular part of business dealings of most major manufacturing companies. The unions have their lawyers and negotiators and so do the businesses. Really it's like any other contract negotiation.

And do you think capitalist were responsible for implementing worker protection into the law?


I'm afraid of a Peron or a Franco or a Hitler or a Napoleon--or even a Stalin. I'm not as sanguine as you Communists about the outcome of such an event. Honestly if I kould KNOW that it would make the world a better place--I'd be all for it.
You apparently support the american revolution. Would you have known, at the time that it would result in a better world? Or would you redcoat?

[RGacky3]

He would have 100% been a redcoat royalist.

[ComradeMan]

He would have 100% been a redcoat royalist.

In a lighthearted sense I do find it funny that proud and patriotic Americans might be anti-revolutionary... the irony.

It just goes to show that one man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter in many, albeit not all, senses.

Buddadict Arnold? :crying:

But I'm down with Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Geronimo!

Hokahe!